Our nation was founded on the basis of equal rights and today, the Supreme Court’s decision reflected our values. The ability to marry is now a right all Americans have and we no longer must wonder why one class of people has been singled out under the law. Simply put, and the majority of Americans would agree, the union of two people in marriage should not be based on gender, but on love.

Are there any Democratic elected officials who made unambiguously critical/negative statements following yesterday's ruling? Any Republican officials who expressed happiness?

I thought quite a few 'pubs came out in favor of gay marriage. I don't know of many Democrats who opposed it though.

Despite the blustering from the main 2016 contenders, other perpetual outrage-generating politicians, and talking heads in conservative media, I was perusing the Twitter and Facebook feeds of many GOPers waiting for a post about it, and so far, many of them are completely silent about what happened.

"For me, the issue of marriage equality is personal," Baker said in a statement. "I'm pleased the Commonwealth has already recognized same-sex marriages in our state, and with today's Supreme Court decision every American citizen across the nation will have equal protection under the law and the right to marry the person they choose."

So was his Lieutenant Governor Karyn Polito:

Quote

As I celebrated 20th wedding anniv this week, I'm happy that marriage is available now to all couples across our country #MarriageEquaility

Yeah, I think he's trying to pretend to act negative, which is a little strange, because he's already on record as a gay marriage supporter.

As best I understand, he is technically correct that Mississippi can't issue the licenses until the Fifth Circuit removes the stay (or until the Supreme Court steps in and does it themselves), but it's kinda silly because obviously if we just went ahead and did it, it's not like there would be any chance of Mississippi losing a lawsuit over this technicality (or have standing to sue in the first place).

Assuming the stay is lifted early next week, I guess it doesn't really matter at all. A few anti-marriage equality voters think Jim Hood tried to stop gay marriage and vote for him in November, while gays can get married just a few days later (and hopefully still earlier than Kansas and Louisiana). If this drags on any longer than that, we have a huge problem though.

. . . To the extent that Americans across the political spectrum view government marriage as authoritative and unlicensed marriage as quaint, our laws must treat marriage—and the corresponding legal benefits that attach—as they would any other government institution. So, while today's Supreme Court opinion rests upon the false premise that government licensure is necessary to validate the intimate relationships of consenting adults, I applaud the important principle enshrined in this opinion: that government may not violate the equal rights of individuals in any area in which it asserts authority.